accessability for browser application

[Disco Octopus]

Hi,

One of the users at a client site has made a complaint that our application
is not accessable for her. She is 80% blind and can not see some of our
menus.

I have not found anything regarding _intranet_ accessability with regards to
Australian law. However there is plenty on the topic of US law.

Has anyone got any information on intranet accessibility within Australian
law?

And, has anyone been in the position whee they must determine whether their
browser base application is a "browser based application" versus an
"intranet application"? ... and is there a difference?

Where can I look for such information on what the laws are concerning this?

Thanks

 

[Karl Groves]

Hi,

One of the users at a client site has made a complaint that our application
is not accessable for her. She is 80% blind and can not see some of our
menus.

I have not found anything regarding _intranet_ accessability with regards to
Australian law. However there is plenty on the topic of US law.

Are you implying that you would not make the necessary changes if it was not
mandated by law?

-Karl

 

[Whitecrest]

One of the users at a client site has made a complaint that our application
is not accessable for her. She is 80% blind and can not see some of our
menus.

The application menus, or the website menus, there is a difference.

I have not found anything regarding _intranet_ accessability with regards to
Australian law. However there is plenty on the topic of US law.

There is no law on "intranet" accessibility because it is private.

Has anyone got any information on intranet accessibility within Australian
law?
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/

And, has anyone been in the position whee they must determine whether their
browser base application is a "browser based application" versus an
"intranet application"? ... and is there a difference?

Intranet is private, there are no laws covering that.

Where can I look for such information on what the laws are concerning this?

See above link

 

[Richard Cornford]

Are you implying that you would not make the necessary changes if it
was not mandated by law?

Wouldn't employment legislation be more relevant in this context anyway?
Someone has a job and presumably is currently able to do it. Their
employer makes a change that prevents them from doing their job. What
happens next? Does the employer now pay them for not doing their job, or
sack them and find someone else? In the first case there is the question
of how someone can fairly compete for promotion when they are not being
allowed to do their job, and the possibility of an employer being sued
for any percieved resulting loss of earnings. In the second case suing
for unfair dismissal seems likely as the employer engineered the
conditions that lead to it.

But menus can scale with changes in the browser's font size, it is just
a matter of implementing them that way.

Richard.

 

[Disco Octopus]

Are you implying that you would not make the necessary changes if it
was not mandated by law?

No. But I am going to explore every possible action regarding this
request/complaint. If circumstances suggest that an action is not cost
effective, mandatory, sufficient in any way, then we still would require
other options.

 

[Disco Octopus]

Wouldn't employment legislation be more relevant in this context
anyway? Someone has a job and presumably is currently able to do it.
Their employer makes a change that prevents them from doing their
job.

For me, the vendor, the employer would be in a position to /blame/? me for
this (or at least point the finger over this way).
Although, this apllication has always behaved in this way.... but still...

What happens next? Does the employer now pay them for not doing
their job, or sack them and find someone else? In the first case
there is the question of how someone can fairly compete for promotion
when they are not being allowed to do their job, and the possibility
of an employer being sued for any percieved resulting loss of
earnings. In the second case suing for unfair dismissal seems likely
as the employer engineered the conditions that lead to it.

However, the application has always (since our first release in 1997)
behaved in this way. Nothing has changed... it has only recently been
noticed.

 

[Disco Octopus]

The application menus, or the website menus, there is a difference.

The application runs in a web browser. It is executed within the customers
intranet. The menus are javascript in the web browser.

I would say, that this _is_ an application, and _not_ a web site.

However, it is not up to me to determine this, and I was hoping that I would
find out some definitive guidelines on this topic somewhere.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/

This talks about the *_Web_* Accessibility Initiative. And my question
would be here "What is _Web_ ?" I don't see that anything in a web browser
is web.


A few points....
* I want to make sure that I am not breaking any laws.
* I want to investigate all possible actions that may be taken.
* I want to weigh up the cost of all these possibilities.

 

[rf]

For me, the vendor, the employer would be in a position to /blame/? me for
this (or at least point the finger over this way).
Although, this apllication has always behaved in this way.... but still...

However, the application has always (since our first release in 1997)
behaved in this way. Nothing has changed... it has only recently been
noticed.

Two questions:

Does your "application" behave the same way as, say, word or excel or
windows explorer or even notepad? That is, is the text size and colour able
to be changed in exactly the same manner as those other "applications",
using the accessibility options (read LARGE fonts and/or desktop themes)
built into the operating system?

Does your "application" *not* do things like hardcode font sizes, for
example by throwing pixels at IE or using images of text, so as to force the
viewer to use a browser specific accessibility option?

If you can truthfully answer yes to both of these questions then IMHO you
have nothing to worry about. If your application behaves exactly like the
other applications on that computer then said user would not be able to use
those other applications either, that is the user would not be able to use
the computer at all. "Recently been noticed" is not an issue. Perhaps said
user "recently" became 80% blind, or was "recently" employed.

On the other hand if you answer no to either question then IHMO it is your
problem and you might be compelled to fix it. You might even be in breach of
the licence agreement between you and your client. Licence agreements
usually imply that the software can be used by the client. Once again,
"recently noticed" is not an issue. Bugs are often "recently noticed" but
they are required to be fixed if you have any sort of maintenance agreement
with the client.

Then again, if it is "shrink wrap" software then caveat emptor. Ever try to
get a bug fixed in those financial packages we all use to complete our BAS?


Cheers
Richard.

 

[Disco Octopus]

Two questions:

Does your "application" behave the same way as, say, word or excel or
windows explorer or even notepad? That is, is the text size and
colour able to be changed in exactly the same manner as those other
"applications", using the accessibility options (read LARGE fonts
and/or desktop themes) built into the operating system?

I think I understand your question, and I would have to say no because any
page viewed in a browser from any site does not change size of font at all
within the browser. (At least in IE 5.5, MOZ 1.7 or opera 7.50).

For me to change the size of the page fonts, I must do that within the
browser itself. In fact... this is how MS Word is behaving.... (not that I
am advocating this, just pointing it out) When the view/zoom is 100%, then
the text is the same size as it is whether I use large fonts or small fonts.
(Maybe I am doing this wrong??).

Does your "application" *not* do things like hardcode font sizes, for
example by throwing pixels at IE or using images of text, so as to
force the viewer to use a browser specific accessibility option?

This is the essence of the problem. My menus are the only font size that is
hardcoded. And if they user IE, they they are not able to change the font
size of the menus.

If you can truthfully answer yes to both of these questions then IMHO
you have nothing to worry about. If your application behaves exactly
like the other applications on that computer then said user would not
be able to use those other applications either, that is the user
would not be able to use the computer at all.



"Recently been noticed"
is not an issue. Perhaps said user "recently" became 80% blind, or
was "recently" employed.

On the other hand if you answer no to either question then IHMO it is
your problem and you might be compelled to fix it. You might even be
in breach of the licence agreement between you and your client.

Yes. Something that I have not thought of. I will look into that too.
Thanks.

Licence agreements usually imply that the software can be used by the
client. Once again, "recently noticed" is not an issue. Bugs are
often "recently noticed" but they are required to be fixed if you
have any sort of maintenance agreement with the client.

Then again, if it is "shrink wrap" software then caveat emptor. Ever
try to get a bug fixed in those financial packages we all use to
complete our BAS?

No shrink-wrapping going on over here! Our client base is large
organisations and government departments. We usually fix bugs as soon as
they are reported.

Thanks for your comments. I will pass them on and share the ponder.

 

[rf]

No shrink-wrapping going on over here! Our client base is large
organisations and government departments. We usually fix bugs as soon as
they are reported.

Hmmm. There is your bottom line, right there, where you say "government
departments".

Government departments are required, by law, to not discriminate against any
person, for any reason, in any way.

The font size in your application's menu can not be changed so as to suit a
visually impaired person. That can be deemed to be discrimination against
that visually impaired person.

IMHO the fact that it is an intranet application running on a browser is
immaterial. You could have hand crafted it in C++ and if the menu font can
not be changed (because you don't take the operating systems accessibility
settings into account) you can be deemed to be discriminating.

I'd sharpen up my pointy stick HTML/CSS editor if I were you Government
departments are known to get rather gun shy and cranky if somebody mentions
discrimination to them.

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Spartanicus]

Government departments are required, by law, to not discriminate against any
person, for any reason, in any way.

Not the case in most countries when it comes to web sites. Can you name
one country where this applies, and has anyone succeeded in enforcing
this?

 

[rf]

Not the case in most countries

The subject country is Australia. The OP is in Australia, selling stuff to
the Australian government. The laws I mention most certainly do apply here,
in this country. True, I should have said "Australian government
departments"

when it comes to web sites. Can you name
one country where this applies,

Australia. A web site sponsored by the government must, by law, be totally
accessible. In fact, anybody at all offering up a public web site (for
example the local bus timetable) are also subject to these laws.

and has anyone succeeded in enforcing
this?

The Sydney 2000 Olympic organizing committee (yes, they were probably not
*exactly* a government department but they were very close) were penalised
(fined heavily) because their advertising (read web site) was not accessable
to a person using a braille reader. Said person was paid off with free
tickets.

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Whitecrest]

This talks about the *_Web_* Accessibility Initiative. And my question
would be here "What is _Web_ ?" I don't see that anything in a web browser
is web.
A few points....
* I want to make sure that I am not breaking any laws.
* I want to investigate all possible actions that may be taken.
* I want to weigh up the cost of all these possibilities.

To restate the parts you snipped. If this is an intranet, there are no
law that cover it. If you fix it , it is because you are being nice.

 

[Karl Groves]

No. But I am going to explore every possible action regarding this
request/complaint. If circumstances suggest that an action is not cost
effective, mandatory, sufficient in any way, then we still would require
other options.

<disclaimer>The below focuses only on the business end of things and NOT the
fact that it should have been accessible in the first place</disclaimer>

You've indicated that this site is a work-for-hire, not an internal thing.
If the client signed off on the design, paid for the product, and took
delivery of it, then that's that. Any modifications you make from that point
forward should be charged to them as maintenance & revision costs.

Of course, they can probably make the argument that you delivered a "broken"
product that did not meet the Statement of Work. I think it would be a
pretty strong argument considering its intranet nature: All of their
employees must be able to use the thing. That's the entire purpose for
intranets...

-Karl

 

[Chris Morris]

(e-mail address removed) says...

There is no law on "intranet" accessibility because it is private.

Certainly not the case in the UK - the Disability Discrimination Act
explicitly protects employees from unfair discrimination (in either
their work or recruitment) for reasons related to their disability. So
over here it would be covered, and would have to be as accessible as
the external website [1]. AIUI the Australian and UK laws are fairly
similar.

Safest to assume it needs to be made accessible by law. Although
provided it's not been coded to be IE-only, giving them a copy of
Mozilla which doesn't suffer from unresizable text might be
sufficient, since it's an intranet context and you can (to some
extent) control the browser.

[1] Technically not true, since it only has to work for the subset of
people who work for the company, *but* on the other hand if the
company then employs someone else with a different disability it would
have to be fixed to work for them almost immediately, if not before
they start work.

 

[Chris Morris]

(e-mail address removed) says...

To restate the parts you snipped. If this is an intranet, there are no
law that cover it. If you fix it , it is because you are being nice.

No "Don't discriminate against employees on the grounds of their
disability" laws? You sure? Any case citations to back this up?

 

[Spartanicus]

Australia. A web site sponsored by the government must, by law, be totally
accessible.

Imo there is no such thing as "totally accessible", even defining just
plain accessibility so that it can be objectively measured in the
context of law enforcement is impossible imo.

I'd be interested in how the Australasians defined this, do you have a
link to said legislation?

 

[Whitecrest]

No "Don't discriminate against employees on the grounds of their
disability" laws? You sure? Any case citations to back this up?

Yes search for google "anti discrimination laws and exemption" you will
be rewarded with tons of examples.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Disco Octopus wrote:

This is the essence of the problem. My menus are the only
font size that is hardcoded. And if they user IE, they they
are not able to change the font size of the menus.

<snip>

That would explain why the menu has been singled out. You have broken
the user's ability to set their own font size where the menu is
concerned. Dong so is unnecessary and usually stems from ignorance or
idleness on the part of whoever wrote the menu script.

The thinking is usually that the sub-menus need to be accurately
positioned (absolutely and in relation to each other) so fixing the font
size and probably the containing box size (in pixels) makes it easy to
know in advance where a sub-menu should be placed.

But an actively functional javascript menu pre-supposes a modern dynamic
visual browser (modern not really meaning more than maybe version 4 or 5
era browsers plus, in this case) and on those browsers it is possible to
interrogate the browser as to the size/position (displayed
dimensions/location in pixels) of elements.

The cross-browser code from reading such values might get a bit involved
(especially in relation to the effect of borders and
overflow:scroll|auto; elements) but for an IE 5+ only Intranet
application the task can be efficiently implemented with little effort.

So with the font size specified in em or % and the containing box sizes
specified in em (or fully/partly unconstrained) the menu javascript has
to read the actual position/dimensions of the elements it is interested
in and work out where to position sub-menus in relation to them for the
desired effect, but the user can pre-set, override or adjust the
browser's font size to their harts content and the javascript will adapt
to cope, scaling the menu with the font size.

(That takes care of the partially sighted (more or less) but the users
of screen readers still have the problem of how their software will cope
when sections of a page suddenly appear or disappear. And if rf is right
about Australian government departments demanding accessible
implementations you will have to think about that as well. A javascript
menu that cleanly degrades to underlying HTML navigation that can be
used as an alternative, combined with a mechanism to tell the script not
to transform that HTML navigation into a pop-up style menu, and a
mechanism that allows the user to express a preference for that
alternative navigation, would maybe deal with that problem.)

Richard.

 

[rf]

Imo there is no such thing as "totally accessible", even defining just
plain accessibility so that it can be objectively measured in the
context of law enforcement is impossible imo.

I'd be interested in how the Australasians

The fact that you seem to not know the difference between Australia and
Australasia (*) precludes any further discussion on the matter.

defined this, do you have a
link to said legislation?

Not to hand but when brucie arrives back he will provide several. He has
them all to hand.

(*) something more than the difference between Northern America and the U S
of A.

Cheers
Richard.